Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-44501-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:21:26 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Tycho Andersen <tandersen@netflix.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] pidfd: implement PIDFD_THREAD flag for pidfd_open()
Message-ID: <20240130112126.GA26108@redhat.com>
References: <ZbQpPknTTCyiyxrP@tycho.pizza>
 <20240127105410.GA13787@redhat.com>
 <ZbUngjQMg+YUBAME@tycho.pizza>
 <20240127163117.GB13787@redhat.com>
 <ZbU7d0dpTY08JgIl@tycho.pizza>
 <20240127193127.GC13787@redhat.com>
 <ZbVrRgIvudX242ZU@tycho.pizza>
 <20240127210634.GE13787@redhat.com>
 <20240129112313.GA11635@redhat.com>
 <20240129-plakat-einlud-4903633a5410@brauner>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240129-plakat-einlud-4903633a5410@brauner>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 01/29, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 12:23:15PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > @@ -3926,6 +3927,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pidfd_send_signal, int, pidfd, int, sig,
> >  		prepare_kill_siginfo(sig, &kinfo);
> >  	}
> >
> > +	/* TODO: respect PIDFD_THREAD */
>
> So I've been thinking about this at the end of last week. Do we need to
> give userspace a way to send a thread-group wide signal even when a
> PIDFD_THREAD pidfd is passed? Or should we just not worry about this
> right now and wait until someone needs this?

I don't know. I am fine either way, but I think this needs a separate
patch and another discussion in any case. Anyway should be trivial,
pidfd_send_signal() has the "flags" argument.

On a related note, should copy_process(CLONE_PIDFD | CLONE_THREAD) add
PIDFD_THREAD flag "automatically" depending on CLONE_THREAD? Or do we
want another CLONE_PIDFD_THREAD flag so that PIDFD_THREAD can be used
without CLONE_THREAD? Again, I do not know, needs another discussion.

> Otherwise this looks good to me!

OK, thanks, I'll send v2 in a minute. The patch is the same, I only
updated the comments.

Oleg.